The Specter of Biblicism

It is not uncommon, particularly during recent Twitter debates, to hear terms such as “Biblicism” and “confessionalism” thrown around by those on various sides of the aisle. By “Biblicism” most seem to mean the “just me and my Bible” or “no creed but the Bible” approaches to Christianity that often lead to aberrant thought, either ancient heresy or theology no older than the milk in my fridge. By “confessionalism” most seem to mean theology that in some way depends on or at least aligns with a historic confession of faith and/or the Ecumenical Creeds (Nicene, Chalcedon, etc.). Many times when the words “biblicism” and “confessionalism” are used it seems to be with the intent of disparaging “Biblicism” and showing how it is not the same thing as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. While I wholeheartedly agree “biblicism” as I defined above is flawed and should be rejected, I feel many times “biblicism” is raised as more of a specter—an ethereal concept not held by many in the scholarly world. It can be found amongst many in the pews to be sure, but most of those who are equipped to engage in dialogue at a scholarly level do not hold to such a radical view. Furthermore, I feel in believing scholarship many confessionalists are not as distant from most biblicists as they might believe. Finally, I think the accusations from confessionalists against biblicists often boils down to a way to label them wrong without substantive scriptural engagement.

(Note: when I use the terms “Biblicist” and “confessionalist” in what follows it is not mean to imply a radical distinction. It simply refers to where scholars would be placed on a spectrum from total dependence on the church a la Roman Catholicism to totally isolated exegesis. Further, I recognize that deriving doctrine from Scripture has to go beyond a mere proof-texting approach but must pay attention to things such as the overall thrust of the Bible and the paradigms found within. But these matters are hermeneutical and beyond the scope of this post).

First, most scholars I know who would probably be labeled as biblicists by those on the more confessional side would never recommend jettisoning the use of creeds and confessions to delineate what is acceptable in theology. For example, I am a PhD student and teaching fellow at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Our institution is confessional. Before I was able to teach a class I had to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as well as the Abstract of Principles. Further, most scholars I know hold historical theology in esteem. I heard it many times in both my undergrad work at Missouri Baptist University and at SEBTS that if you arrive at a conclusion no one has seen in 2,000 years of church history, you’re probably wrong. I believed this was sound advice then and I believe it now, to the point that I communicated the same concept to the class I taught recently. The idea that the thinkers I interact with—who happen to often be more on the Biblicist side—want to engage in isolated exegesis with little regard for the broader church just does not bear the weight of evidence. It is oftentimes a mere specter. The biblicists I know simply want to see doctrine established in Scripture rather than established solely (key word!) by creeds or confessions.

Second, I’ve seen committed confessionalists claim they hold the confession they do because it best expresses the teaching of Scripture. Who determines this? For a person to subscribe to a confession because it best represents Scripture implies they have made their own judgments about what Scripture teaches. Of course, they might have been enlightened by studying the confessions. But ultimately they made their determination to subscribe based on the confession aligning with what they saw Scripture teaching. Otherwise, welcome to Roman Catholicism. Based on the words I’ve heard from confessionalists I know many claim they would reject the confession if they found it contradicted the Bible. Ultimately, Scripture is uniquely authoritative in both the more Biblicist approaches and the more confessional ones. Both sides ultimately want their doctrine to be biblical. Thus, they are not often as far apart as is sometimes suggested.

Third, I have often been disheartened to see confessionalists argue by simply appealing to the confessions. It is far better in my view to find out why the confessions taught certain points, namely, where they derived their conclusions from Scripture and then go back to the biblical text and proceed from there. Done in this way, exegesis is not severed from the church at large or its historical moorings, but we are getting back to the only truly inerrant and inspired book, the Bible. By all means, exegete with an eye to the confessions and the works of others throughout the 2,000 years of church history. But exegete the Word of God, not the confessions. And argue against positions by going to this one uniquely authoritative source; don’t just say something is wrong because the WCF, LBCF 1689, or BF&M 2000 said it was. Wrestle with the Scripture and ultimately ground your doctrine there. Otherwise, the road to Rome is paved. Finally, it is often argued that confessions are the only way to avoid a plurality of contradicting interpretations. Confessions certainly do serve this function but this critique forgets that one must decide which of the multiple and contradictory confessions they are going to follow.

One final note: some will no doubt see this blog as arising from the Trinity debate over Twitter this summer so let me say a few things. First, the Trinity debate was the catalyst for my thinking through some of these things. Second, I am firmly on the side of those arguing against ERAS. I do not agree at all with Grudem and Ware despite my respect for these men. I do not want to jettison 1,700 years of Christian consensus, for one thing (and I’m saying that as a Biblicist!). However, I hope my reasons for disagreeing with them ultimately come back to Scripture rather than simply relying on what others have said. Let us study and learn from each other and from the entire Christian tradition. But let us be bound only by the Word of God.